Parker: A jury of one's peers

The headlines were immediate: All-women jury chosen for George Zimmerman's trial.

Kathleen Parker

The headlines were immediate: All-women jury chosen for George Zimmerman's trial.

What is the likelihood that you, a man, would face an all-women jury? What are the chances that one-third of the jurors judging you on a charge of second-degree murder identify their hobby as saving animals? Finally, what's your bet that the victim in the case — an unarmed African-American teen, will receive justice from a panel that is five-sixths white?

We depend on reassuring answers to such questions, but our headlines belie our skepticism. Do we really trust our peers?

Zimmerman, 29, is charged with the fatal shooting of Trayvon Martin. Zimmerman, a volunteer watchman, saw Martin, 17, walking in his neighborhood, thought he looked suspicious, and the rest made headlines.

What makes the jury interesting, other than the head-snapping reporting of its composition, is that it brings up implications we try to avoid: Do gender, race, ethnicity (age, sexual orientation, and so on) matter when it comes to judging one another?

We like to think not, yet — admit it — the reason the all-women jury also made headlines is because it raises those questions.

Those questions are at the heart of the prosecution's case. Zimmerman, who avers he acted in self-defense, is accused of profiling Martin and acting accordingly.

Because Martin was African-American and wearing a hooded shirt (it was raining), en route from a store back home, Martin presumably took him to be dangerous — inherently, not because of anything overtly threatening.

Would a white teen similarly attired have been adjudged potentially dangerous by Zimmerman? The prosecutors think not. Yet, we also know Zimmerman, who is Hispanic, worked as a volunteer with black youth. He wasn't by any apparent standard a racist. But he decided someone who looked like Martin didn't belong in a neighborhood where several break-ins had occurred.

Was his deduction logical or racist — or both? Consciously or not, we all make such judgments. We cross the street to avoid someone whose dress or behavior makes us feel less secure. It's human nature, rooted in survival. Understanding this is no justification for harmful actions, but behavior can't be judged independent of context.

This is what Zimmerman's jury will have to consider. Under the circumstances, might a reasonable person have responded as Zimmerman did? As to what really happened in a scuffle only Zimmerman is alive to describe, jurors will have to fill in blanks.

And what about that jury?

Most likely, news of the all-women panel prompted involuntary thoughts: Can such a jury fairly judge a man? Would we ask the same were the defendant a female and the jury all-male?

If two jurors are so softhearted they rescue animals (would that everyone did), are they tough enough to condemn a man to life in prison? Will five white women be inclined to side with Zimmerman because of their similar skin pigmentation and possible experiences with race? We recoil at such questions because they offend our sense of justice. We trust juries because there is no better alternative. We console ourselves that jurors typically take their jobs seriously and try to be fair.

In our racially diverse, multicultural nation, it isn't clear if a jury of one's peers is possible.

Whatever the outcome, the Zimmerman trial will force us to confront our own biases — a needed step toward the aspiration we call blind justice.